Conclusion

Conclusion

With more gaming monitors coming to market with G-Sync and FreeSync, manufacturers have to find some way to set themselves apart from the competition. Since adaptive refresh guarantees freedom from annoying frame tears, regardless of price or technology, there aren’t too many features left to add or delete.

The PG248Q, as part of the ROG product line, represents the “kitchen-sink” approach. This monitor has absolutely every possible feature a gamer could want. The principal one, G-Sync, is a must for premium systems. While FreeSync offers the same net benefit, it takes a bit more digging to find the panels that can hit a 30Hz lower limit. Many stop the fun at 40Hz, which can be an issue for users of less expensive video cards.

This monitor, however, is about upper limits. By adding a 180Hz capability, Asus has positioned this display as a future-ready product. Note that we’re not using the term “future proof” since, in reality, there’s no such thing. Our G-Sync system performs extremely well thanks to its GeForce GTX Titan X board. While an SLI setup would pump out higher framerates, our tower comes pretty close to what most games will be able to serve up at the limit.

So did we actually see 180 on the FPS counter? No, not during actual gameplay. Tomb Raider and Far Cry 4 topped out around 120 FPS at max detail levels. Dropping the settings took us up to 140 FPS or so but not beyond. Why would you want a 180Hz monitor, then? For the future of course.

A gaming display is an investment for sure. Premium screens like the PG248Q aren’t cheap and monitors are expected to outlast multiple PC upgrades. That is where this product fits in. Hardcore gamers will be replacing hardware on a regular basis, but they don’t necessarily want to shop for a new panel every six months.

One last word about the benchmarks before we wind this up. We were a little disappointed with the PG248Q’s out-of-box accuracy. At this price level, a monitor should not require calibration. Our initial measurements showed this one did. The end result, though, was a stunning picture that hit all the marks with regards to grayscale, gamma, and color. It just took some tweaks to get there. If you decide to purchase this display, we strongly suggest using our recommended settings on page two. Changes to the RGB and contrast sliders plus the proper gamma preset will make a big difference.

In the end, though, once the games come out, those issues barely matter. The speed and responsiveness of the PG248Q is pretty much unparalleled. We spent many hours playing just for the fantastic suspension of disbelief it enabled. And that, in a phrase, is why you should buy this display. Yes, it’s FHD, and yes, it’s TN, but that won’t matter once you use it. With a few flaws, we can’t quite award it an Editor’s Choice, but it easily earns the Tom’s Editor Recommended title.

Uh, another con that is NOT listed: lack of FreeSync. Why? G-Sync already excludes AMD cards (and while it is considerably less important to most of us, Intel iGPUs too.) With FreeSync not having the NVidia G-Sync "tax"... oh wait... NVidia might contractually exclude the possibility of any monitor that include FreeSync and/or older adaptive-sync technologies in addition to G-Sync.

1. Both Asus and Acer have always offered both G-Sync and Freesync versions of their Gaming monitors. The only impact on the consumer is the effort choosing the one that matches their card. No real mystery that the nVidia version hits the market 1st given the image below. Not really a mystery when vendors concentrate on the 82% of market before addressing the 18% of market.

2. Either way, 144, 165, 180 Hz provides technology that represents the upper cost niches as opposed tot he lower. Peeps purchasing monitors at the upper price limits in any given category are likely to be purchasing GFX cards in the upper price limits. So what we see when pepes post their builds for the most part is GTX 1060s / RX 470s paired with $250 monitors. With 1070 / 1080s in the build, the monitor budget is a bit higher.

3. It may be fun to call the price difference a "tax" but that is a misnomer:

AMD Freesync package provides Freesysnc and no hardware module is installed in the monitor.
nVidia G-Sync provides G-Syn and also includes a hardware module for ULMB

When two monitors are made using the same panel, and electronics ... then one has a hardware module installed which provides ULMB and the other does not, is it not logical that that hardware module has a cost associated with it ? You can buy Freesync monitors with motion blur technology included but in such cases it is added by the monitor manufacturer. The difference being that w/ G-Sync, it's always the same module... with Freesync, the design and quality varies by monitor manufacturer.

Never quite understood the mindset where there's an expectation that a company should invest millions of dollars in R&D and then should be required to share that technology for free. AMD has had the opportunity to license technology in the past and chose not to.

4. As it says in this review:

"While FreeSync offers the same net benefit, it takes a bit more digging to find the panels that can hit a 30Hz lower limit. Many stop the fun at 40Hz, which can be an issue for users of less expensive video cards."

The digging will usually result in a monitor from a manufacturer who chose a more expensive panel which of course. like adding the MBR module, adds to the cost.

I am not making a judgement as to whether the cost increase is "worth it".... that judgment will vary according to each individual. But the claim that the two technologies are "the same" or provide the same features and performance is just incorrect.

1. Regarding the "out-of-box" accuracy, I expect that you will be able to download corrected ICC profiles for this monitor shortly on TFTcentral

2. When Acer made the move to 165 Hz in their Predator line, the 165 Hz was considered of no significant impact and many called it a gimmick. 165 Hz tho made one very important impact.... it allows a 120 Hz setting under ULMB, up from the 100 Hz that was available w/ the 144 Hz model. It would appear that 180 Hz offers no advantage here.

3. I keep wondering why we don't see IPS panels in this segment ... guess is that by the time one includes a gaming capable IPS panel and modern hi-end gaming technology to support it, the price is so close to a 1440p panel, most would just choose the larger panel.

I generally don't use THG reviews for decision purposes as the articles are the kind that "listen to Mom"" and follow the old adage "if ya don't have something nice to say, then don't say anything at all". As far as AOC, in my eyes, well let's just say I'm not a fan.... at least not till I see one I'm impressed with and that hasn't happened so far.

As far as response time goes.... wish we had more detail and with lag added in for all reviews so that a valid comparison can be made.

Would like to see something like this

User reviews on newegg aren't too reassuring for the G2460PF with just 12 peeps contributing:

5 eggs = 33%
4 eggs = 42%
3 eggs = 0%
2 eggs = 8%
1 egg = 17%

and the ones complaining are citing no support and failure to meet spec.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA8X548C3991

Compare that to the 1,171 Asus VG248QE reviews

5 eggs = 72%
4 eggs = 13%
3 eggs = 5%
2 eggs = 4%
1 egg = 5%

Again, for me I wouldn't touch that AOC ... I would touch this Asus either. Before I'd spend $500 on a TN 1080p panel, I'd save up another $200 and get a 1440p IPS, 165 Hz Acer Predator or Asus Swift. Peeps tend to keep monitors thru 2 or 3 builds so there's a tendency here to invest a bit and get something better since it will be around a lot longer.

With today's video cards (i.e. 1070) ... I think if pushed into a corner @ 1080p until I could afford a 1440p, I'd be more likely to choose a VG248QE w/ no G-Sync. With every game above 60 fps ... G-Sync or Freesync really won't be missed since a) it's value is really below that threshold and b) you can do motion blur reduction via the toasty strobelight utility. Could then use the Vg248QE as an accessory monitor for monitoring utilities, ventrillo, etc

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/variable_refresh.htm

It should be noted that the real benefits of G-sync really come into play when viewing lower frame rate content, around 45 - 60fps typically delivers the best results compared with Vsync on/off. At consistently higher frame rates as you get nearer to 144 fps the benefits of G-sync are not as great, but still apparent. There will be a gradual transition period for each user where the benefits of using G-sync decrease, and it may instead be better to use the ULMB feature included, which is not available when using G-sync. Higher end gaming machines might be able to push out higher frame rates more consistently and so you might find less benefit in using G-sync. The ULMB could then help in another very important area, helping to reduce the perceived motion blur caused by LCD displays. It's nice to have both G-sync and ULMB available to choose from certainly on these G-sync enabled displays.

Not sure why people still make a big deal out of the lower refresh limit on FreeSync monitors. AMD has been compensating for that in software (called LFC), much like Nvidia does, for more than a year now. I've not seen screen tearing below 35Hz since FreeSync monitors first came out.

The refresh rate has no impact after a certain limit as the human mind has its own refresh rate what is limited. I think that something like 120 Hz is already higher as needed. This is the reason games are not pushing higher refresh rate. Games instead add more detail and image quality. I think this monitor is overkill. However ASUS will be able to sell it as some people with a lot of money will buy it. I will stick to a cheaper monitor with about 120 refresh rate.